August 6th, 2020 - Development/Insider Update

[MatthewS 761]

15 minutes ago, pmb said:

No need for drama here. Numerous testers have pointed to specific places which they happen to know where trees were wrong. Some were already corrected, others not yet. And some users may even have been wrong in their claims.

They will work on this  And with the enormous number of regular users who will reporting more after release they will get those right by and by.

MatthewS, I would suggest reporting concrete failures yourself to Zendesk instead AVSIM after release - I am serious here.

Kind regards, Michael

 

The issue is they do not have plausible defaults (for certain tree types, like rainforest and conifers), if they did then we would not be seeing 10+ storey rainforest in Sydney.

A plausible default would be to never allow any trees taller than 5 storeys UNLESS there is specific data (user corroborated) to the contrary.

The world is full of average sized trees (5 storey or shorter).  The 10+ storey rainforest (like we see in Sydney) is the exception, not the rule.

So you see, if Asobo's default approach is one of implausibility then the world of FS2020 will always be full of comically exaggerated tree scale (like we see in Sydney).

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by MatthewS

[Vindeballe 60]

While I ignore MatthewS, I enjoy MSFS every day.  😁

[MatthewS 761]

Just now, Vindeballe said:

While I ignore MatthewS, I enjoy MSFS every day.  😁

Haha, well, ignorance is bliss, so if you ignore the issue of real world tree scale then I'm sure you will enjoy it.

[FlyingInACessna 656]

4 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Haha, well, ignorance is bliss, so if you ignore the issue of real world tree scale then I'm sure you will enjoy it.

Weren’t we already told we can manually adjust tree size? And Asobo has clearly acknowledged that they understand it’s an issue and will fix it. So why the need to continuously complain about it like nobody is listening? It isn’t that we all want to fly in an unrealistic world; it’s that we understand steps are being taken to fix it and that we will have control over our own preferences, so we have absolutely no reason to get upset.

 

Plus, it’s one issue in a simulator that depicts the entire planet. I still think their trees look substantially better than anything I’ve seen in any other sim, and I think it’s ridiculous to say you’d turn off autogen trees if you can’t scale them yourself (which you supposedly can do anyway right?).

Edited August 7, 2020 by FlyingInACessna

[MatthewS 761]

1 minute ago, FlyingInACessna said:

Weren’t we already told we can manually adjust tree size? And Asobo has clearly acknowledged that they understand it’s an issue and will fix it. So why the need to continuously complain about it like nobody is listening? It isn’t that we all want to fly in an unrealistic world; it’s that we understand steps are being taken to fix it and that we will have control over our own preferences, so we have absolutely no reason to get upset.

We can manually adjust tree size, great! How? .ini file, apply a scaling factor for tree types, you know this for certain? 🤔

Asobo might be listening but are they actually doing anything... After months of listening nothing has changed. 🤦‍♂️

It's easy to say, "yeah we hear you", big deal...  Actions speak louder than words and guess what, no action 11 days before release AFAIK, so time is running out if it's going to be fixed by release.

Maybe they'll get around to it 3 months from now in an update? 🤷‍♂️

[Slides 1,552]

🙄

[MatthewS 761]

Just now, Slides said:

🙄

🤷‍♂️

[FlyingInACessna 656]

1 minute ago, MatthewS said:

We can manually adjust tree size, great! How? .ini file, apply a scaling factor for tree types, you know this for certain? 🤔

Asobo might be listening but are they actually doing anything... After months of listening nothing has changed. 🤦‍♂️

It's easy to say, "yeah we hear you", big deal...  Actions speak louder than words and guess what, no action 11 days before release AFAIK, so time is running out if it's going to be fixed by release.

Maybe they'll get around to it 3 months from now in an update? 🤷‍♂️

Yes, maybe they will, because it’s a smaller issue when you put it into perspective. Three months is nothing for a fix like that. Although you make it sound small, it’s actually a substantial thing going in and fixing the AI they have in place that generated those trees. And while they could probably allow you to adjust the global scale no problem, that’d ultimately lead to some areas looking bad again. But as they said, don’t miss the forest for the trees... look at the entirety of what the sim is now. 

They’re trying to handle this while catering to the needs of the VR audience, fix the systems on the G1000 and autopilots for the airliners, and fix other bugs that have been reported, all while trying to implement new features like seasons. I would think this isn’t their largest priority. 

Plus, there are so many things to nitpick about the sim; why do you only choose to do so with trees? It’s all I’ve ever seen you mention.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

15 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Haha, well, ignorance is bliss, so if you ignore the issue of real world tree scale then I'm sure you will enjoy it.

Some times you just gotta look past things in life. Lol haha

 

[MatthewS 761]

9 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

Although you make it sound small, it’s actually a substantial thing going in and fixing the AI they have in place that generated those trees

No... For sure the AI is placing the tree at a specific location, but the scale (height) could be constrained at runtime and user configurable through say an .ini file.

eg If I prefer conifers to be smaller by 25% and the "rainforest" types to be smaller by 50% (from the Asobo defaults)

treesize_conifier=.75
treesize_rainforest=.50

Edited August 7, 2020 by MatthewS

[Doug47 574]

I'm so glad it's a FLIGHT simulator and not a TREE simulator. 

[FlyingInACessna 656]

17 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

No... For sure the AI is placing the tree at a specific location, but the scale (height) could be constrained at runtime and user configurable through say an .ini file.

eg If I prefer conifers to be smaller by 25% and the "rainforest" types to be smaller by 50% (from the Asobo defaults)

treesize_conifier=.75
treesize_rainforest=.50

Alright fair enough. Well we haven’t had confirmation either way as to whether this already exists in the native sim, so I say wait until the 18th while understanding that they’ve acknowledged the issue, and if it isn’t how you’d like it by then, then it’s okay to continue voicing your opinion again. 

[OneOfMany 314]

Please Asobo, do not make this change until I can fly over my house and land next to my magnificent 90' conifer at least once. 

[Dominique_K 10,138]

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

I've seen some noticeable flaws that - at least to my inexperienced eye - seem avoidable. Like wrong roof types although clearly visible on BING maps, not placing the correct colors, putting buidlings where indeed there's a courtyard...

We saw that in a Bangkok pic where the AI makes a mess of downtown including drawing a building where a palace perimeter wall is. It is avoidable but the AI has to learn  and that will take time. Interesting to learn that Blackshark.ai has  been on the FS20 project for three years. 

Same for the trees, wrong size, wrong species or mix, wrong emplacement. Not everywhere but enough to be annoying. I understand maybe better why they dont want to do seasons too early. If the AI is still too young to make the distinction between evergreen and deciduous in all their varieties they have some work to do on the issue.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Dominique_K

[rtodepart 761]

You know what PMDG could take in the trees modeling business.... that announcement would must likely make some people happy .